Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bwdls58!mlord
From: mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: MINIX and 68030
Message-ID: <4408@bwdls58.UUCP>
Date: 24 Sep 90 14:51:17 GMT
References: <90266.095514ST00482@auvm.auvm.edu>
Sender: mlord@bwdls58.UUCP
Reply-To: mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 21

In article <90266.095514ST00482@auvm.auvm.edu> ST00482@auvm.auvm.edu (dan drake) writes:
>I've just been informed that MINIX will not run on an Amiga 3000 (running
>a 68030).  How has AMIGAMINIX been limited to 24 bit pointers and integers?
>Is it just a case of recompiling it with a compiler that uses 32 bit integers?
>If this is the case, could I recompile the source under AmigaDos, and have
>a valid program?  I see no reason why not, if the output is just plain
>vanilla 68000 code or 68030 code.  (I'm not even sure that my compiler
>supports any other processors than the 68000.)
>   Does the problem rise from the caches of the '030?  In that case, they
>can be turned off.  How much of the distribution is in assembly?  Does
>this section use instructions that are priviledged in the 68030?

There ought to be little or no difference between an '020 and and '030.

HOWEVER, the stack frames for exception ahndling ARE different between the
regular 68000 and the '020/030.  Try looking at the interrupt handling stuff.
-- 
 ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________
| ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) |
| MLORD@BNR.CA   Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only.   |
|________________________________|________________________|